SUDHIR KUMAR BAHUGUNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, the learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, the learned brief holder for the State.

(2.) In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court passed an order dated 07th September, 2009 sentencing the revisionist to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In addition to this, the trial court directed the revisionist to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. The revisionist, being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, filed an appeal under Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure and also filed an application for stay of the sentence, etc. The lower appellate court admitted the appeal and stayed the sentence and the fine, but, imposed a condition that the revisionist would be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a security of Rs. 50,000/- and further the Appellant would deposit 50% of the compensation, i.e. Rs. 3 lakhs. It further transpires that the revisionist deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and also filed another application praying for extension of time to deposit the balance amount. The lower appellate court granted further time to the revisionist. The revisionist, being aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court directing the Appellant to deposit 50% of the compensation, has preferred the present revision under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that once an appeal has been filed under Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision of Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted automatically and that the sentence and fine is automatically suspended under Sub-section (2) of Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure The learned Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the suspension of fine would also include the suspension of compensation and that the direction of the court to deposit 50% of the compensation was not only arbitrary, but also infringed the personal liberty of the revisionist, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2007 6 SCC 528, wherein the Supreme Court after analyzing various provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the provision of Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure held: